Switzerland’s upper house of parliament has voted to require the country’s only remaining global systemically important bank to back its foreign subsidiaries with at least 90% hard core equity — roughly double today’s floor. The decision, taken on 23 September 2026, directly targets UBS and forms part of the post-Credit Suisse overhaul of Swiss ‘too big to fail’ rules. Understanding the UBS foreign subsidiaries capital rule in full requires looking at these details closely.
This piece summarises what the Ständerat actually decided and what it means for the UBS foreign subsidiaries capital rule, drawing on the original reporting linked below and cross-referenced against the gf6.com directory of financial locations, a four-year curated database of banks and ATMs worldwide. We do not add figures beyond what was reported.
The finding — what the Senate decided — UBS foreign subsidiaries capital rule
The headline fact is a clear political signal: the Ständerat sided with the tougher of two competing proposals, over the objections of UBS and major business associations. The vote advances the amendment to the Banking Act through the legislative process, but the National Council still has to agree before it becomes law. These figures put the UBS foreign subsidiaries capital rule into clearer perspective.
The core numbers from the session are as follows:
- Date of vote: 23 September 2026
- Chamber: Ständerat (Swiss Senate)
- Result: 33–10 with two abstentions
- New requirement: at least 90% hard core equity (CET1) backing foreign subsidiaries of systemically important banks
- Previous requirement: 45% CET1 plus up to 17% AT1 bonds
- Rejected softer alternative: 50% CET1 threshold (majority proposal)
- Adopted motion: minority proposal by Peter Hegglin (Centre/ZG)
- Bank affected in practice: Zürich-based UBS
- Next step: National Council must concur
What it means
In plain terms, the Senate wants UBS to fund its foreign subsidiaries almost entirely with the highest-quality form of capital rather than a mix of CET1 and AT1 debt. Moving from a 45% CET1 floor to 90% is a substantial tightening, and the chamber consciously rejected the softer 50% option in favour of the stricter minority motion. This context matters for anyone following the UBS foreign subsidiaries capital rule.
The move is widely seen as a direct legislative response to the collapse of Credit Suisse and its emergency takeover by UBS, which left Switzerland with a single globally systemic bank of unprecedented size relative to the domestic economy. UBS and business associations argued publicly that the stricter requirement would permanently damage their competitiveness. Supporters of the Hegglin motion took the opposite view: that a bank of this scale requires a correspondingly conservative capital base at home to protect Swiss taxpayers. It is a central thread in the wider UBS foreign subsidiaries capital rule.
It is important to be precise about what the vote does and does not do. It does not, on its own, change the law. The National Council still has to concur, and any divergence between the two chambers would trigger the standard reconciliation procedure. Until then, the current 45% CET1 plus up to 17% AT1 regime remains in force. Such details shaped how the UBS foreign subsidiaries capital rule unfolded.
The event was reported by multiple Swiss outlets, including NZZ and Bilanz, which independently confirmed the vote result and the shift from the majority’s 50% proposal to the 90% minority motion.
How it fits into the Swiss banking landscape
UBS is headquartered in Zürich and operates one of the largest branch and subsidiary networks of any Swiss-based institution, alongside a domestic retail footprint that overlaps with cantonal banks, Raiffeisen and PostFinance. The gf6.com directory tracks physical banks in Switzerland across these groups, which helps put the political debate in context: the capital rule targets one specific institution, but that institution sits at the centre of the country’s financial infrastructure.
Because the requirement applies to foreign subsidiaries, its most immediate effect would be felt at the group level rather than at any individual Swiss branch counter. Customers walking into a UBS office in Zürich or Bern on the day of the vote would have seen no operational change. The consequences, if the National Council concurs, would play out over years in the form of how UBS structures and finances its international units. This is one of the defining aspects of the UBS foreign subsidiaries capital rule.
Explore the full data behind this article: bank branches worldwide and ATMs worldwide in the gf6.com directory.
Methodology
The facts above — the date, the 33–10 vote with two abstentions, the shift from 45% CET1 plus up to 17% AT1 to a 90% CET1 requirement, the rejected 50% majority proposal, and the role of Peter Hegglin’s minority motion — come from reporting by SWI swissinfo.ch: swissinfo.ch, corroborated by NZZ and Bilanz as linked above.
Contextual information about the Swiss banking landscape draws on gf6.com’s own curated directory of bank branches and ATMs, a four-year manual research project covering roughly 445,000 financial locations worldwide (about 346,000 branches and 99,000 ATMs). The directory is a large but incomplete sample; coverage varies by country and it is not an official regulatory source. We have not added any statistic, name, quote or percentage beyond those in the cited reporting.
Frequently asked questions
What exactly did the Swiss Senate vote on?
The Ständerat voted on an amendment to the Banking Act that would require systemically important banks to back their foreign subsidiaries with at least 90% hard core equity (CET1). The result was 33–10 with two abstentions on 23 September 2026.
Which bank does this actually affect?
In practice only UBS, which is headquartered in Zürich. It is currently the sole Swiss bank classified as systemically important at the global level and is therefore the only institution to which the proposed rule would apply.
How does 90% CET1 compare to the current rule?
Under the current regime, systemically important banks must back foreign subsidiaries with 45% CET1 plus up to 17% AT1 bonds. The Senate’s motion replaces that mix with a single, higher hard-equity floor of 90% CET1.
Is the rule now law?
No. The Ständerat vote advances the package, but the National Council (the lower house) must still concur before the amendment enters into force. Until then, existing capital requirements continue to apply.
Why did the Senate choose 90% instead of 50%?
A majority proposal would have set the threshold at 50% CET1, but the chamber instead adopted a minority motion by Peter Hegglin (Centre/ZG) at 90%. UBS and major business associations had publicly opposed the stricter requirement, arguing it would harm their competitiveness.
Does this change anything for UBS customers today?
Not directly. The vote concerns group-level capital rules for foreign subsidiaries and does not alter branch operations, deposit protection or day-to-day banking services in Switzerland.
This article was produced with AI assistance from publicly available sources and is handled under our editorial standards and AI policy.
I have been online since 1995. For many years, I worked in the e-commerce sector, setting up several online shops, and have always been interested in data analysis. In 2007, I moved to the Seychelles to work from there or as a digital nomad. In recent years, I have increasingly specialised in the financial sector. I manage the Seychelles’ Commercial Register and am also very familiar with the offshore world. GF6.com is a project I have been working on for many years. I built and curated the 445,000-entry bank database myself over a period of six years, and for the past two years or so I have also been using AI to achieve better structures.
More from this author →
